When the Trayvon Martin shooting first broke in the national news, I went to the web site of the Miami Herald to read the local press coverage. The Herald reported that witness said that she had dashed outside immediately after hearing the gunshot. As she asked George Zimmerman what happened, she watched him use a particular gesture. Here is the quote from the Herald. The emphasis added is mine:

 “I asked him, ‘What’s happening here? What’s going on?’ ” said Selma Mora Lamilla. “The third time, I was indignant, and he said, ‘Just call the police.’ Then I saw him with his hands over his head in the universal sign of: ‘Oh man, I messed up.’ ”

Is there such a universal gesture? When I read her description, I imitated Zimmerman’s gesture to see what feeling it provoked in me, if any. Since her description is somewhat inexact, I raised my hands over my head and tried a few different possibilities:

• I vigorously grabbed my head with both hands.
• I let my hands hover, palms down, a couple of inches above my skull and simply froze.
• I tensed the muscles in my arms with my hands hovering over my head.

It could be the power of suggestion, but the gesture triggers in me a feeling akin to, “Oh man, I messed up.” Give it a try. What does that gesture make you feel?

Why do we grab our heads—and, therefore, our brains—when we have an extreme reaction such as, “What was I thinking? Why did I do that? Oh man, I messed up!” Is that really what was going through Zimmerman’s mind after the shooting? (I wondered about this when he attempted to apologize to Trayvon’s parents from the witness stand during the bail hearing.)

A radically different interpretation could be that his head hurt following the alleged fight that he later described. But assuming that was Zimmerman’s body language upon realizing he had shot and killed a teenager armed with only iced tea and a bag of candy, what does it mean? Is it a universal gesture? Could a jury consider such a gesture as evidence?

That got me thinking about hearsay in the courtroom. There is a hearsay objection for out-of-court statements. Could there be a hypothetical objection for an out-of-court gesture? “Objection, Your Honor: Gestural hearsay!” Can you challenge an out-of-court gesture being demonstrated on the witness stand? “What gesture did you see Mr. Zimmerman do?” “Objection: Hearsay!” Was Zimmerman’s gesture the equivalent of an excited utterance, and therefore an exception to my hypothetical hearsay objection?

Such an unanswerable question is enough to make me “throw up my hands.” According to my online dictionary that phrase describes the universal gesture for giving up: “to cease an attempt because it is perceived to be doomed.”

For the Miami Herald’s ongoing coverage of the Trayvon Martin case, click HERE.

 What do you do with your hands as you speak?

That’s a trick question, of course. We don’t know what we do with our hands as we speak because we don’t look—not at our own hands, certainly, and rarely at anyone else’s.

Here, using James Murdoch at the Leveson Inquiry as our example, is your chance to look, see, and be amazed at what is right under your own nose when you talk. Gestures are invisible, yet also in plain sight once you know what to look for. This two-minute video clip reveals the specific, detailed, content-rich world of gestures collaborating with thoughts and words.

Mr. Murdoch (along with the rest of us) doesn’t just speak with his hands; he thinks with his hands. Understanding this intersection of thought, word, and gesture requires a few simple labels to describe the gesture types:

• GIVE gestures are done with palms up as you give information, opinions, or questions.
• SHOW gestures are physical visual aids that animate your thoughts and words. In conversation, listeners reply, “I see what you’re talking about,” because gestures SHOW them. Finally, a universal gesture used unconsciously by every speaker is the “double karate chop.”
• In the CHOP gesture, both hands turn sideways as in a gentle karate chop and together move horizontally back and forth before us as we spatially place our ideas in specific locations.

Listen carefully to Murdoch’s words on this video, but focus your eyes throughout on his gestures as they shape his thoughts, and often, precede his words. The timing of gestures happening before words is the strangest surprise!

First read the partial transcript of key phrases below, and then watch the video. Several viewings of the two-minute clip will allow you to completely plumb the depths and complexity of what his gestures communicate in tandem with his words. There is so much information provided in his gestures, you won’t be able to absorb it the first time.

Transcript of pertinent sections:

“Retweeting…the genie’s out the bottle if you will…”

[with a palms up GIVE gesture he gives the topic]

“…how you enforce the right of reply…”

[a common SHOW gesture places problem on his finger tip]

“…where they re-tweeted from in a second and third instance…”

[hands SHOW three different re-tweeting locations]

“How we do that in one country, one jurisdiction…”

[he GIVES the question, palms up]

“Ultimately, one has to be practical…”

[he GIVES his advice]

“Nothing’s possible. It’s too complicated.”

[Hands SHOW the scope of complicated impossibility.]

“…something that is adaptable and I think also doesn’t create absurdities in differential rulemaking…”

[Hands slice back and forth to SHOW the differential, which he says only after he shows the differentials with gesture. Thought and gesture precede words.]

“…with respect to what’s published online in one place…”

[his gentle double karate chop slides to his left to SHOW “one place”]

“…and what’s published online in another…”

[double chop SHOWS another place farther to his left]

“…one piece online is okay because it’s only online and it’s in Canada, but it’s being consumed here…”

[SHOWS one piece palms down]

‘…and the other piece is not okay because it’s online…”

[SHOWS other piece with a move to the other place he referred to earlier. Note the consistency of gesture placement as thoughts are spatially organized and repeated.]

“…but it happens to also get printed on a piece of paper…”

[SHOWS a third location to locate the newly introduced printed on paper]

“That’s a difficult…”

[false start to his sentence as gestures scroll through ideas looking for the right word and gesture, which his hands are about to find for him]

“It’s difficult to just slice that off…”

[SHOW gesture pantomimes the slicing. Pay close attention to when his right hand rises up to prepare to slice a moment before he says slice. Thought and gesture precedes words again.]

“If it’s printed on paper, it will have these regulations…

[SHOWS with move to his right to delineate regulations. Throughout, online is to his left, print on paper is to his right]

“…and if you don’t, I think there’ll be other issues.

[SHOWS moving back to the left for online publishing]

Excerpt #2

“In a digital environment you have both journalists…”

[palms up to both GIVE his opinion and SHOW the larger universe of journalists]

“…who are producing content…”

[repeats GIVE twice to indicate producing content]

“…by actors who are down to the scale of one unit with one person with a laptop…”

[thought and hands precede words by narrowing to CHOP to SHOW one person before he says the words]

“And you have on the other side Google or News Corp…”

[SHOWS each entity with a separate gesture location]

“Where you draw the boundaries…”

[gestures SHOW boundaries]

“…what is the discourse…”

[hands SHOW the back and forth of discourse]

“…set of rules around…”

[hands SHOW the rules around]

We all engage in this same type of gesturing all the time, completely unconsciously. No speaker is aware of, much less actively monitoring, this gestural movement. Gesture is an instinct, a reflex, and a lifelong habit at work. Whether you are speaking publicly or in private conversation, trust your ability to do it. The essence of “being natural” when the pressure is on is to be able to gesture naturally, but you need to know what “natural” is. You are already the world’s expert at how you idiomatically gesture while thinking and speaking, but you likely are not even aware of it. Yet.

The manner of your thought, speech, and gesture are inextricably linked together in your brain. Let yourself gesture.

• For the science behind this analysis, read Dr. Susan Goldin-Meadows book titled “Hearing Gestures: How Our Hands Help Us Think” (Harvard Press, 2003). Her title says it all.
• To watch and listen to all the Leveson hearings, go to http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/hearings/

Like many of us curious to hear the charges against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case, I tuned in to the press conference held by Angela Corey on Wednesday. Immediately, I was distracted by public speaking issues. I was surprised and then puzzled by Ms. Corey’s demeanor and attitude. Brian Johnson and I often help lawyers choose an attitude for trial or other public presentations, and I was baffled by the special prosecutor’s slight smile and—for lack of a better term—pseudo prayer-meeting overlay to her remarks.

Here’s a link  to the full press conference, so you can see for yourself. For starters, why did she need to read her introductory remarks? I’m betting  that she really does know the names of her staff, so she shouldn’t have to read them. Occasionally lawyers tell me that they write down the first words they plan to say, including, “Your Honor, my name is……” May we all please stop doing that? If you got through law school and passed the bar, you know your name and those of your colleagues. Just take a deep breath before you start talking. Reading from that little monitor on the podium at the press conference got Ms. Corey off to an disconnected, clunky start.

That doesn’t account for her demeanor. Maybe I’m being unfair. Maybe she’s a politician first and a prosecutor second. Maybe she is truly concerned about the Martin family. But she could have chosen an attitude that showed a concern for justice, the family, and the nation. Some suggestions are tough, uncompromising, serious, confident, compassionate for the victim’s family. How about some disgust or outrage? Watching her again, I can’t tell what her attitude is. It is too out-of-focus. I can’t reconcile the misplaced smile with second-degree murder charges.

I’m glad to see a woman in this position of power, and happy that the female judge is a respected former trial lawyer. Maybe women are redefining public discourse with traditionally feminine attitudes. I just wish I understood this one.

Listening live, as many of us here in Arizona were, I was struck by the increasing outrage I could hear in O’Neil’s voice. Reading the 33 ethical violations and findings, he began with an even-handed tone. The first allegations included a few findings that there was not clear and convincing evidence of ethical violation. But it didn’t take long for the judge’s voice to take on harder attitudes: impatience, outrage, disgust, exasperation. The unanimous decisions piled up, as Judge O’Neil read, “We find that there IS clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Thomas violated that ethical rule,” etc., etc. By the time he read that Aubuchon was disbarred, we all knew that Thomas was next. The climax of the 18 minutes of findings was dramatic.

To listen, go to:

http://azcourts.gov/pdj/VideoPage.aspx

Today’s video is already archived (bravo, Arizona Supreme Court!). Here you can also watch the proceedings from last fall’s hearings in all their lurid detail.

Listen especially to the inflection, clear voice, and tone of Judge O’Neil’s delivery. It’s an excellent example of reading with conviction.

When I coach public speaking skills with attorneys one-on-one, I begin each session by asking three questions: What is your practice area? How long have you been practicing? Is there any particular communication challenge that inspires you to sign up for an appointment to spend forty-five minutes working with me?

I need that context to begin to understand each person. It gives me a first impression of how each attorney speaks conversationally. I watch how much each person gestures – or not. I listen to the pace at which she speaks, or how frequently he uses filler words and thinking noises: um, like y’know? Can I hear the vocal inflection we call the uptick of uncertainty, which makes the rising ends of phrases and sentences sound like questions?

As an efficient and economical way to train many attorneys at a given firm, I increasingly have occasion to conduct these one-on-one coaching sessions using videoconferencing technology. I can be in a law firm conference room in one city, and during the course of the day work face-to-face with attorneys in that office, and also coach attorneys in different offices all over the country.

It’s amazing how smoothly the video technology works. As if by magic, I am connected to each office at the appropriate time. I simply wait for the next participant to appear on the screen before me.

This week, I had a genuinely inspiring video encounter with a lawyer half a continent away. On the television screen before me I saw a distinguished gray-haired gentleman in a sharply tailored suit, clearly a senior partner. My first impression was that he had mistakenly wandered into the wrong conference at his office—until I realized that he was, in fact, my next student.

I began by asking my usual questions. His surprising answer to my third question was the kind of response that should be an inspiration to all of us. Replying to my what-brings-you-to-me question, he said, “I’ve been a public speaker since I was fifteen years old. I’ve been practicing international law for sixty years, speaking all over world. I’m 82 years old. I signed up for a coaching with you because I want to get better.”

He’s been practicing law longer than I’ve been alive, yet he believes that the “practice” of law, at least for those with discipline, focus, and personal integrity, means you constantly strive to improve.

“I want to get better.” That’s a personal philosophy to emulate! Eighty-two years old, still practicing law, still sharp as a tack. Still striving to get better. And, not surprisingly, when he began his presentation, he was darned good. Coaching an experienced speaker isn’t about fixing flaws; it’s about pointing out existing strengths in his style that he can exploit even more often, and incorporating complementary elements to add even more range and variety to his well-developed skill set.

As a teacher, I want to get better, too. My octogenarian advocate reminds me to keep my standards high, and to keep striving to be the best. I want to live up to the expectations of my most advanced students. Nowadays, they may walk through my door, or pop up on my screen.

You may have over-dosed on the Affordable Health Care arguments at the Supreme Court last week, but look at the bright side: we can now see them with at least some perspective, with the news frenzy dying down. I won’t go into much detail, but I want to include links to audio and transcripts so you can listen, and read, for yourself.

I’ve complained elsewhere that there is no video yet in the Supreme Court. It is a real shame we did not have a chance to watch these arguments. We’ve had to rely on reports from those few in the room about how General Verrilli looked when he was thirsty, or how Paul Clement gestured, or how annoyed certain justices were with different parts of the many hours of argument. Other courts are accommodating video feeds, and the Supreme Court can, too. In fact, we should have had video long before now. We the People have a right to see and not just hear. And think how much everyone could learn about thinking on one’s feet!

Here are links:

• Monday’s Audio
• Monday’s Transcript
• Tuesday’s audio
• Tuesday’s transcript
• Wednesday’s audio 1
• Wednesday’s transcript 1
• Wednesday’s audio 2
• Wednesday’s transcript 2

The battle of the titans is on at the Supreme Court this week. Star advocates and celebrity justices argue behind closed doors, viewed by a lucky few in person. The politics of the health care hearings is hard to avoid, whether you turn on a TV, a radio, click into a news source, or find a newspaper at your hotel room door. Without video to show us what is happening (and video is long overdue at the Court), we rely on journalists and bloggers, or audio and transcripts. Audio from the courtroom allows us to hear through the politics and think about how the arguments unfold. What can we hear?

On Monday, we heard three advocates, Robert A. Long, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., and Gregory G. Katsas, debate the relevance of the Anti-Injunction Act. The first to speak, Mr. Long, was interrupted in the third paragraph of his initial statement after 90 seconds. That means he had a minute and a half to get his heart rate down and manage his adrenaline flow before Justice Scalia said, “Well, that depends…..”

Last week’s news reported on the amount of  preparation going on in Washington for these arguments. One implied that we were running out of lawyers willing to impersonate Supreme Court justices because so many moots were scheduled. Here are some of Monday’s real questions that those simulations were preparing for. They were just the type of inquiry to keep an advocate’s heart racing:

• What kinds of cases do you imagine that courts will hear, on what grounds?
• Are you asking us to overrule the Davis case?
• Now, doesn’t that sound like an equitable exception to the Anti-Injunction Act?
• I’m trying to get you to focus on that kind of argument.
• Are you following me?
• Isn’t the fairer statement…..
• Doesn’t that just prove that…..

All three advocates stood their ground, answered succinctly or in detail when appropriate, and kept multiple questions in mind as they answered. They looped back to their own themes, occasionally with a polite apology about repeating themselves. It proved a decent warm-up for General Verrilli, who had two more grueling days ahead of him. Just listening to voices, his was the clearest, with the most air under the sound. His voice is a resonant baritone, with a pleasing quality.

When listening to arguments, pay special attention to the rate of speech of both advocates and justices. The ability to speak in deliberate phrases, without rushing, is the key to thinking and speaking in the moment.

For Monday’s audio, go to:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Monday

News reports after Tuesday’s arguments stated that General Verilli had sounded nervous. I was surprised, as he seemed confident on Monday. But sure enough, his first statement betrays a problem when listening to the audio that is not apparent in the transcript. Here is the transcript, with my observations inserted:

GENERAL VERRILLI: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
The Affordable Care Act addresses a fundamental and enduring problem in our health care system and our economy. Insurance has become the predominant means of paying for health care in this country. COUGHS TWICE, THEN REPEATS THE LAST SENTENCE, SO HE MUST BE READING. Insurance has become the predominant means of paying for health care in this country. For most Americans, for more than 80 percent of Americans, the UH insurance system does provide effective UH access. DRINKS WATER, AND WE CAN HEAR THE ICE CUBES TINKLE IN THE GLASS Excuse me. AS A LISTENER, I AM NOW BECOMING UNCOMFORTABLE, WONDERING WHAT IS WRONG.
But for more than 40 million Americans who do not have access to health insurance either through their employer or through government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid, BIG, AUDIBLE BREATH, the system does not work. Those individuals must resort to the individual market, and that market does not provide affordable health insurance. It does not do so because COUGHS SMALL STUTTER it — because the UH multibillion dollar subsidies that are available for the -UH the UH SOMETHING IN HIS TONE OF VOICE SIGNALS HE IS STRUGGLING, THAT HE IS STILL NOT OK employer market are not available in the individual market. It does not do so because ERISA and HIPAA regulations that preclude — UH that preclude UH discrimination against people based on their medical history do not apply in the individual market. That is an economic problem. And it begets another economic problem.

Here, at 1:44, Scalia asks the first question, in a quiet voice.

What happened to General Verrilli during that first minute and forty-five seconds? I’m guessing that he had “cotton mouth,” that odious condition resulting from adrenaline’s shutting down of the digestive system and robbing the speaker of saliva. It makes people clear their throats, need a drink of water, cough—all at the most important moment, the first-impression beginnings. In most public speaking situations, you can recover, but at the Supreme Court, your questioners may smell blood in the water. They will probably attack before you completely recover.

What do you think? Did General Verrilli recover sufficiently to argue effectively? How would you guard against this hazard?

For Tuesdays’ arguments:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday

A recent email from a colleague included a request for my help with what she described as her “Achilles’ heel.” She bemoaned the fact that, despite over-preparing for presentations, including conference calls with authority figures, she works herself into a frenzy, becomes tongue-tied, and often loses her train of thought. An Achilles’ heel is defined as “a fatal weakness despite overall strength.” While discomfort with public speaking is not a fatal weakness, (although, metaphorically, nervous speakers often feel as if “I’m dying up here!”) many lawyers we work with recognize that an inability to speak comfortably, credibly, and fluently under pressure is a weakness, despite their overall strengths as smart, competent professionals.

How do you heal the Achilles heel of public speaking?

What my colleague did not know is that I have a new understanding of this expression, having recently ruptured my Achilles’ tendon playing tennis. The moment it goes POP!! – an unforgettable sound and sensation all sufferers describe – you instantly understand, “Oh no! That was my Achilles’ heel.” My surgeon sutured the tendon back together, but I’m in a cast for six weeks. Before I offer my diagnosis and prescription for healing the Achilles’ heel of public speaking, let me put the expression into its mythic context. (To bypass the mythical context, scroll down to “Here is the fix.”)

According to the Greek myth, Thetis, dips her infant son Achilles into the River Styx to make him invincible. But as she lowers the baby in the river, her grip on Achilles’ heel prevents the water of the magical river from washing over that part of his lower leg. As a result, his heel becomes his vulnerability, despite his overall invincibility. Years later, during the Trojan War, an arrow strikes Achilles in the heel, killing him. The use of the expression to describe a weakness despite overall strength, came into use about 1840 in England.

Is public speaking your Achilles’ heel? To find a solution, let’s leap from ancient myth to modern brain science and a new book titled, Thinking, Fast and Slow, by the Nobel Prize-winner Daniel Kahneman. It is bursting with revelations about how our brains work. To take just one of his ideas and apply it to public speaking, or stressful conference calls, I will reword his title. All of us who strive to be speak well need to grapple with Thinking, Fast and Slow as we struggle with Speaking, Fast and Slow.

Kahneman sheds light on my own theory about the speed with which we talk. The conversational pace that you and I use in natural conversation – say about our weekend plans, for example – is a pace we use habitually. Let’s call this Speaking Fast. This quicker pace is analogous to conversational cruise control. Speaking Fast is accompanied by Thinking Fast, because most of the time we are talking about topics that are not particularly complicated.

Contrast this with Thinking and Speaking SLOW. Thinking Slow is what the brain must do when things get complicated. It’s the kind of mental processing we use when multiplying a couple of three digit numbers, reading instructions to hook up a computer and a printer, sight-reading piano music for the first time, or filling out a tax form. Its verbal partner, Speaking Slow, is the slower pace we adopt when giving someone directions to drive to an unfamiliar destination. Thinking Slow is what the brain uses to make a public speech, talk to intimidating authority figures on a conference call, or explain a complex legal concept to a client who isn’t a lawyer.

Here’s the obvious problem we all face while public speaking: Although our brain needs Thinking Slow to carefully structure and remember what we want to say, we unconsciously, instinctively, and reflexively begin Speaking Fast. When brain and voice are out of sync one cannot easily put thoughts into words! It’s like keeping your car on cruise control when you suddenly find yourself in heavier, slower traffic. Unless you turn off the cruise control, your car will crash and burn. Likewise, unless you adjust the speed at which you talk while presenting, your cognitive process will spiral out of control.

We speak fast in these moments mostly out of habit, but we are also affected by the cognitive time warp created by the adrenaline rush of high-stakes presenting. When the pressure is on, time seems to go slower. When people survive a real life or death experience, they typically say this about time: “My whole life flashed in front of me, and everything went into slow motion!” When time appears to warp slower, nervous speakers talk even faster to compensate. This is like keeping your car on cruise control and accelerating at the same time.

It’s easy to do, especially at the beginning of a presentation. Even if you are well prepared, speaking fast as you begin doesn’t allow enough time for thinking slowly through the material you are presenting. As a driver who knows very well where you want to go, you won’t arrive safely at your destination if you drive too fast for conditions. This nerve-wracking speed doesn’t serve your listeners well either.

Here is the fix, especially if you are someone who already knows how to prepare. Add to your preparation some conscious, out loud practice of the pace of your first paragraph. Experiment with synchronizing the Speaking and Thinking Slow pace that will work for you, given the complexity of your topic. In our books we suggest that you tell yourself: “Speak in phrases, not whole sentences.” Here is the easiest way to set your presentational cruise control so you don’t exceed the speed limit of your cognitive comfort. Say aloud the Pledge of Allegiance. Feel this rhythm of speaking a phrase at a time:

I pledge allegiance

to the flag

of the United States of America

and to the Republic

for which it stands

one phrase

at a time.

That is the solution! Using the same rhythm as the beginning of the pledge, say:

That is the rhythm

I can use

to control the pace as I’m speaking.

Although talking slower is the easy to conceive of, it’s one of the hardest things to achieve. I work with many young lawyers who struggle to slow down while having an adrenaline rush, even after I spoon-feed them a slower pace and ask them to imitate me. Try to do it right now. Read this next sentence from the Greek myth, then look away from the text, and say it from memory, out loud, in phrases,

When he was a child

Achilles the warrior

was dipped in the River Styx

to make him invincible.

Speaking in phrases takes mindful practice so that you can do it when the pressure is on. Do it. Today. On the phone. Speaking with a colleague. During lunch. Be mindful of speaking in phrases in conversation, so that when the challenge of thinking slowly arises, you can speak slowly to match. Sync your thoughts with your words, and your voice with your brain. It may not make mere mortals invincible word warriors, but it will help you heal that Achilles’ heel.

On Friday, March 2, the much-anticipated mystery witness took the stand in the case against Rutgers student Dharun Ravi, accused of using his dorm room webcam to spy on his gay roommate, Tyler Clementi. Soon afterward Clementi committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. Ravi is accused of bias intimidation, invasion of privacy, and witness tampering.

Even after appearing, the mystery witness remained anonymous because the judge insisted on protecting his identity, as he is considered a victim. Known only by the initials M.B, he was intimate with Clementi in his dorm room during the alleged spying. To shield his identity, the courtroom video of his testimony is silent. The camera focuses only on his hands in his lap. Yet his hands are remarkably revealing, not about who he is, but how he is feeling.

The commentator observes, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone be so nervous.” What can this unusual video of his hands reveal about his extreme state of nervousness?

More generally, what do nervous people do – or not do – with their hands, whether testifying or advocating in the courtroom? They don’t gesture freely.

Count the number of gesture impulses revealed by the video clips of M.B.’s hands. A gesture impulse is a partial, tentative movement that is unintentionally inhibited or restrained. These motions are not just random fidgets; they are directly connected to word emphasis.

Nervousness does this to everyone. Nervous people use tight gestures, and comfortable people display loose hands and arms. Relaxed speakers gesture freely; nervous people reveal only short, jerky impulses, as in this clip. Comfortable speakers gesture on words that deserve emphasis, as they instinctively highlight and emphasize important words. Verbal emphasis on these key words unlocks the meaning of speech. Emphatic gestures accompany emphatic words.

But not when someone is really nervous, like M.B.

I count at least 30 inhibited impulses to gesture on the brief video clips of his hands. As his hands instinctively attempt to gesture, nervousness restrains them, resulting in spasms or twitches of his fingers or hands. He can’t stop this impulse because it’s an unconscious instinct—in fact, he’s completely unaware of it.

What is true for nervous witnesses in the courtroom is also true for anxious advocates, even those trial lawyers who consciously attempt to stifle their natural gestures. Here is how the progression of speaking anxiety often unfolds:

To begin any part of the trial, advocates often stand with hands locked on the sides of the lectern in a white-knuckle death grip. Soon, usually within the first minute, unconscious gesture impulses emerge. First, it’s just the micro-spasm of an index finger. Then all the fingers flex during a key word, like the tentative wings of a fledgling bird attempting first flight. Eventually a hand lifts off the lectern, but quickly returns to where it began. Several minutes pass, as this nervous fidgeting clearly shows how ill at ease the advocate is. Finally, after several minutes, natural gestures eventually take over, when the jerky impulses are replaced by full-sized, comfortable gestures.

Why wait so long to look and feel comfortable?

The CNN commentator in the courtroom likely couldn’t see the hands of the witness. Despite that, M.B.’s generally inhibited behavior, of which these gestural impulses were a key component, contributed to her observation of how nervous he appeared.

The answer to the mystery of how to appear comfortable, even when you feel nervous, is to gesture immediately. Do it consciously. If you don’t, your hands spasm and twitch, and these gesture impulses create a negative impression on your jury. You don’t want your jurors thinking, “I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone be so nervous.”

Avoid that fate by consciously gesturing immediately and fully on your very first question or sentence.

Paul Clement, the lawyer who has been in front of the U.S. Supreme Court almost more than any living attorney, is notoriously well-prepared. To read more about his style, here is a profile of Mr. Clement from the New York Times.

David Boies, as famously super-prepared as Clement, talks about preparing for cross-examination in this video on American Lawyer.

And as always, find the best and those who aspire to join them as they argue before the celebrity panel at the U.S. Supreme Court. Listen HERE.